Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

Science Says Dinosaur Era Had 5x Carbon

anthonyjmcgirr

Posted 25 March 2014 - 09:43 PM

anthonyjmcgirr

Junior Member

Junior Member

208 posts

I came across this article on Yahoo. It fits exactly what I've been saying and what we could've expect before the flood when there was a canopy of water. The earth would've been going through a greenhouse period. Now science confirms that the carbon levels were higher, throwing off their testing.

nebula

Posted 25 March 2014 - 10:12 PM

nebula

Royal Member

Worthy Watchman

56,992 posts

Interesting. I read a theory that what actually killed the dinosaurs was an increase in oxygen levels (which could be expected with a decrease in CO2, I think?). This theory better explains why the dinosaur extinction was a slow process. (The meteor collision fails to adequately explain the slow die-off.)

anthonyjmcgirr

Posted 25 March 2014 - 11:29 PM

anthonyjmcgirr

Junior Member

Junior Member

208 posts

was it a slow die off? Of course I don't think they all went extinct at the exact time. Every kind was represented on the Ark and many were hunted by man, many died off when the earth cooled after the canopy fell, etc. There's evidence of dinos existing pretty much up until recent time. Even then you hear legends of things that still exist in lakes and in the rainforests.

Tolken

Posted 26 March 2014 - 07:09 AM

Tolken

Advanced Member

Advanced Member

322 posts

anthonyjmcgirr - Now science confirms that the carbon levels were higher, throwing off their testing.

I didn't quite see in the article any reference to dating the earth at around 6,000 years, did you? In fact the article seemed quite focused on climate change, not dating. From the article “Dinosaurs that roamed the Earth 250 million years ago knew a world with five times more carbon dioxide than is present on Earth today, researchers say, and new techniques for estimating the amount of carbon dioxide on prehistoric Earth may help scientists predict how Earth's climate may change in the future.”

There's evidence of dinos existing pretty much up until recent time. Even then you hear legends of things that still exist in lakes and in the rainforests.

Evidence of dinosaurs existing recently, where is that evidence? Unless you can provide evidence I have never seen any information that suggests co-habitation of humans and dinosaurs ...except with the “Flintstones”.

anthonyjmcgirr

Posted 26 March 2014 - 08:36 AM

anthonyjmcgirr

Junior Member

Junior Member

208 posts

Me and several others have presented tons of actual physical proof of man and dinosaurs co-existing. Just because someone says "250 million years ago" I just don't accept it. They have no physical proof of that. It's just an unproven theory. But them figuring out the world had 5 times more carbon at one point goes along with my theory that the world was like a greenhouse at one point before the flood, allowing for animals and humans to live much longer and growing to massive heights. The bible says there were giants in those days and Job speaks of the Behemoth, described perfectly as a dinosaur and of no other animal living today. What other animal is SO incredibly massive it's described in such a way, drinks up the river and has a tail so long it's described as a cedar? Only one comes to mind...a Brontosaur?

This evidence fits with the theories Creation scientists have about how the world would've looked before the flood.

The bible says there were giants in those days and Job speaks of the Behemoth, described perfectly as a dinosaur and of no other animal living today.

I could be wrong but isn't "behemoth" only mentioned once in the Bible, Job 40:15? Explain why that couldn't have simply been referring to an elephant, giraffe, hippo, etc.? As for "giants" that is in reference to people not animals. One would think that if all of the biblical characters of the old testament interacted with dinosaurs on a frequent basis it would be mentioned quite a bit more than once.

The bible says there were giants in those days and Job speaks of the Behemoth, described perfectly as a dinosaur and of no other animal living today.

I could be wrong but isn't "behemoth" only mentioned once in the Bible, Job 40:15? Explain why that couldn't have simply been referring to an elephant, giraffe, hippo, etc.? As for "giants" that is in reference to people not animals. One would think that if all of the biblical characters of the old testament interacted with dinosaurs on a frequent basis it would be mentioned quite a bit more than once.

There are only 4 possible "rational" conclusions that can be drawn based on the above "evidence" (I have Thousands more):

1. Humans Lived with Dinos.

2. Multiple Cultures Conjured these from their imaginations and constructed pottery, architectural designs, paintings/drawings @ various times and different Geographical Separated Locations that Miraculously just so happen to fit Modern Paleontology's exact descriptions of these Creatures. (Including Skin Color/Designs)

3. ALL Ancient Cultures had Paleontologists that: dug up bones, reconstructed them to exacting details including appropriate flesh anatomy, skin color, and design. Then made Pottery, Architectural Motifs and Drawings depicting them exactly then reburied the Bones."

4. All said Ancient Cultures "Guessed".

Please, what's your choice? (I can't wait)

Just because someone says "250 million years ago" I just don't accept it. They have no physical proof of that. It's just an unproven theory.

So you're pointing out that there is no "Proof" either way, eh? Then why do we get bombarded on a daily basis of Billions of Years and my Daughter's Earth Science Textbook states these Conjured Fairytale Long Ages as FACT??

What's the Big Deal about your Link? Pull out what you wish to comment on and SUPPORT IT.

The bible says there were giants in those days and Job speaks of the Behemoth, described perfectly as a dinosaur and of no other animal living today.

I could be wrong but isn't "behemoth" only mentioned once in the Bible, Job 40:15? Explain why that couldn't have simply been referring to an elephant, giraffe, hippo, etc.?

Tolken

Posted 29 March 2014 - 04:24 PM

Enoch2021 - This is just absolute conjecture here but maybe the Bible is not a "Dino-Human Interaction" choreography and GOD had more important TRUTH'S and Doctrines to Express?? Maybe?

If what you state is what you believe then why do attempt to present some poor artwork as absolute proof? lBut yes, conjecture is fine...but if dinosaurs actually existed in “Biblical” times one would think such enormous creature, and quite dangerous, would be mentioned...at least more than once. (Why do I need to start there..one verse is hardly supportive...well maybe an elephant) It is worth considering “Chariots of gods” which offers art of extraterrestrials to promote the idea that life originated from such influence. (It also invokes thoughts of Hoyle’s panspermia theories.) So there is proof that life originated by extraterrestrials, do you accept that?

As of yet there has been no hard “physical” evidence of human and dinosaur interaction. One would think that some fossil remains, you know a human flying on an archeopteryx - I believe that art was also found, would be found, but as of yet none.

Please, what's your choice? (I can't wait)

Just because I find your “style” amusing when you believe you’ve exhausted all possibilities...

*It is possible that fossils were found and drawings rendered based on them.

*It is possible that they were an exaggeration of known lizards and such.

*It is known that some of the art, ICA stones for example, are considered hoaxes and even some creationists believe so.

*One sees through biased eyes, as clearly some of the depictions are ambiguous at best.

*They could be composites drawings and considering the level of talent...

What's the Big Deal about your Link? Pull out what you wish to comment on and SUPPORT IT.

Why, the link is self explanatory...do you have a degree in Physics or Geology? So otherwise you go to a creationist site and pull info and I go to a legitimate science site and pull info. As LookingForAnswers has suggested you can be directed to any number of sites where scientists and extremely well studied people would be glad to engage with you. In fact you may be able to contact Dr. Wiens, very personable and gracious, he is involved with science as opposed to simply trying to prove or disprove something.

Posted 29 March 2014 - 07:10 PM

If what you state is what you believe then why do attempt to present some poor artwork as absolute proof?

It is worth considering “Chariots of gods” which offers art of extraterrestrials to promote the idea that life originated from such influence.

I question coherency and relevancy? Is this suppose to be some kind of Parallel or Analogy to the Dinosaur motifs that I provided? You know (hopefully, but I'm hesitant), you're missing half the equation, right? To be a Relevant and Coherent Analogy........ you kinda need Actual Alien(s) to Match up with the Drawings

Be careful of watching too many Discovery Channel Documentaries...except for Comedy Relief, as the basis for your "science" acumen

So there is proof that life originated by extraterrestrials, do you accept that?

As of yet there has been no hard “physical” evidence of human and dinosaur interaction.

Except the Evidence I just Provided. But of Course, the "Hard Physical Evidence" you mean Time Machine evidence, right? And, Obviously, when "Hard Evidence" is provided it withers away under the relentless Equivocation Parade that's waiting in the Bull Pen

Or yours is (just now....as a result of the Trainwreck above) the "Directed" Panspermia variety....where life was brought here by Aliens on a Space Ship, eh? No UnBridled Conjured Speculation for you.

Just because I find your “style” amusing when you believe you’ve exhausted all possibilities...

*It is possible that fossils were found and drawings rendered based on them.
*It is possible that they were an exaggeration of known lizards and such.
*It is known that some of the art, ICA stones for example, are considered hoaxes and even some creationists believe so.
*One sees through biased eyes, as clearly some of the depictions are ambiguous at best.
*They could be composites drawings and considering the level of talent...

WoW

Why, the link is self explanatory...do you have a degree in Physics or Geology?

Well on most sites, just posting a "Link" is considered Intellectually Dishonest and Lazy and will get you banned right quick. Mostly due to the fact that the one's offending, have no understanding of the subject and can't speak to the material.

So they just go by whatever somebody tells them to believe, without the slightest scrutiny, and then adopt it into their "a priori" adherence to Fairytale World View that they adopted using the self same technique....and then attempt to peddle to the unsuspecting and unaware that invariably leads to Outer Darkness and the Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth for all involved.

So otherwise you go to a creationist site and pull info and I go to a legitimate science site and pull info.

And from just a cursory reading of a few of my posts, most of my sources are: Nature, Scientific American, New Scientist, Astrophysics Journal, Science, adsabs harvard.edu, Astronomy, Physics Bulletin, Molec. Biol. Evol, et al). Are you saying these are CREATIONIST Publications??

he is involved with science as opposed to simply trying to prove or disprove something.

Tell you what, petition the Scientific Establishment and have them replace the SCIENTIFIC METHOD then!! Actually, no need for that..... they already replaced it some years ago with "Peer Review". So you're good!...No Worries

Tolken

Posted 30 March 2014 - 12:46 PM

Tolken

Advanced Member

Advanced Member

322 posts

Enoch2021 - There are only 4 possible "rational" conclusions that can be drawn based on the above "evidence" (I have Thousands more):

Only 4...do you have a source for that or is it simply by your subjective prerogative? And thousands more of what? ...hopefully of some rational conclusions. So you could only come up with 3 rational conclusions (actually two)...yet I would assert my list is quite as “rational” as yours. At best the only “evidence” (oh, here we go into your overuse of equivocation) is quite debatable.

1. Humans Lived with Dinos.

Rational though with scant support.

2. Multiple Cultures Conjured these from their imaginations and constructed pottery, architectural designs, paintings/drawings @ various times and different Geographical Separated Locations that Miraculously just so happen to fit Modern Paleontology's exact descriptions of these Creatures. (Including Skin Color/Designs)

3. ALL Ancient Cultures had Paleontologists that: dug up bones, reconstructed them to exacting details including appropriate flesh anatomy, skin color, and design. Then made Pottery, Architectural Motifs and Drawings depicting them exactly then reburied the Bones."

Could you point me to your support/source stating that flesh anatomy, skin color, and design are completely understood by paleontologists?

4. All said Ancient Cultures "Guessed".

Rational conclusions cease..... do you deny that exaggerated and fantastical creatures were portrayed in art/statues across many cultures, and often based on actual living creatures?

Except the Evidence I just Provided. But of Course, the "Hard Physical Evidence" you mean Time Machine evidence, right? And, Obviously, when "Hard Evidence" is provided it withers away under the relentless Equivocation Parade that's waiting in the Bull Pen

Except the evidence that you provided, as noted, is hardly conclusive and remains ambiguous and debatable. Yes, a time machine would help...and perhaps hard physical evidence from other than simply ambiguous human art. You were the one who talked about two or more related concepts to form coherence or something, so where are the other lines of evidence?

Well on most sites, just posting a "Link" is considered Intellectually Dishonest and Lazy...

As is your wont to have little regard for context consider that the link was informational as to radiometric dating not based on a specific point of argument but on dating methods in general. There is nothing intellectually dishonest or lazy about posting such a link. It would be, perhaps, if a more specific or narrowed point was raised, however that was not the case. I appreciate that you then continue on and on, but understand it is quite meaningless as to the discussion.

I knew you couldn't post a reply without @ least 1 Logical Fallacy, in this case: The "No True Scotsman" Fallacy:

When in doubt posit a fallacy...as I’ve noted to you on other threads your attempts fail. So, if you join a scientific organization that requires you to take an oath regarding a mandated bias / presupposition / entrenched view then how would you term the organization? Actually, the "No True Scotsman" applies to certain organizations not to my contention.........

So from this array of reading material please point me to the articles/source that assert that radiometric dating is false, that ancient art is proof of dinosaurs, that superposition and correlation are unreliable so that fossil/rock dating is purely circular?

If you read more carefully...but yes, in a YEC way. Creation science, somewhat of an oxymoron, seeks to prove only a young earth, and/or only seek to attempt to disprove any science that posits otherwise, sorry “secular” science. So what I was saying was that scientists follow a method that leads in a direction, as opposed to following a direction and making sure the answers fit that direction...see the difference?

I may or may not continue this but if I do is it possible for you to limit your innocuous fluff? When you go off on your attempt to belittle it makes it very difficult to find any “meat” in your position.

Enoch2021

Posted 30 March 2014 - 02:50 PM

Enoch2021

Senior Member

Senior Member

2,239 posts

==================================================================

I'm done playing these childish games with you. From many instances over multiple threads your reply's on multiple topics have quite aptly shown IN TOTO: Complete Obtuseness to simple concepts and Willful Ignorance.

But Jesus Loves You more than you can Fathom....for the very hairs on your Head are all Numbered.

Tolken

Posted 30 March 2014 - 03:12 PM

Tolken

Advanced Member

Advanced Member

322 posts

Enoch2021 - I'm done playing these childish games with you. From many instances over multiple threads your reply's on multiple topics have quite aptly shown IN TOTO: Complete Obtuseness to simple concepts and Willful Ignorance.

I guess LookingForAnswers was correct...so if one disagrees, you simply attack the person. Obtuseness and willful ignorance, and that is your evidence...ad hominems are always quite persuasive.

jerryR34

Posted 31 March 2014 - 12:38 PM

jerryR34

Veteran Member

Banned

733 posts

I came across this article on Yahoo. It fits exactly what I've been saying and what we could've expect before the flood when there was a canopy of water. The earth would've been going through a greenhouse period. Now science confirms that the carbon levels were higher, throwing off their testing.

gray wolf

Posted 08 April 2014 - 05:13 PM

gray wolf

Senior Member

Senior Member

1,451 posts

Me and several others have presented tons of actual physical proof of man and dinosaurs co-existing. Just because someone says "250 million years ago" I just don't accept it. They have no physical proof of that. It's just an unproven theory. But them figuring out the world had 5 times more carbon at one point goes along with my theory that the world was like a greenhouse at one point before the flood, allowing for animals and humans to live much longer and growing to massive heights. The bible says there were giants in those days and Job speaks of the Behemoth, described perfectly as a dinosaur and of no other animal living today. What other animal is SO incredibly massive it's described in such a way, drinks up the river and has a tail so long it's described as a cedar? Only one comes to mind...a Brontosaur?

This evidence fits with the theories Creation scientists have about how the world would've looked before the flood.

I would like to see your tons of evidence. Richard Dawkins wrote that if it could be proven that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, it would blow evolution out of the water. I've seen Enoch's pictures already

Enoch2021

Posted 08 April 2014 - 07:00 PM

Enoch2021

Senior Member

Senior Member

2,239 posts

Me and several others have presented tons of actual physical proof of man and dinosaurs co-existing. Just because someone says "250 million years ago" I just don't accept it. They have no physical proof of that. It's just an unproven theory. But them figuring out the world had 5 times more carbon at one point goes along with my theory that the world was like a greenhouse at one point before the flood, allowing for animals and humans to live much longer and growing to massive heights. The bible says there were giants in those days and Job speaks of the Behemoth, described perfectly as a dinosaur and of no other animal living today. What other animal is SO incredibly massive it's described in such a way, drinks up the river and has a tail so long it's described as a cedar? Only one comes to mind...a Brontosaur?

This evidence fits with the theories Creation scientists have about how the world would've looked before the flood.

I would like to see your tons of evidence. Richard Dawkins wrote that if it could be proven that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, it would blow evolution out of the water. I've seen Enoch's pictures already

So what's the Threshold of Proof lol........ a Triceratops Thigh ?? Or a Velaciraptor on your back porch??

it would blow evolution out of the water.

A Simple Cell and the critical thinking skills of a Ground Squirrel does that all by itself.